His claim is about McCarrick (the priest) and seminarians with regards to Francis.

And they specifically address that Pope Francis should resign because he allegedly knowingly promoted McCarrick for 5 years before ultimately letting him go.

You’re talking about prison. The claim from Vigano has to do with McCarrick and seminarians. Not children. To be clear, Vigano does not claim to have seen Francis cover up pedophilia.
He is making a claim that about sexual abuse in the sense of misused authority. Specifically that, that Francis lifted some sort of restrictions on McCarrick placed by Benedict because of conduct alleged by seminarians at some point… There is no record of that happening (Francis lifting any restrictions). Later when an allegation was made about McCarrick engaging in sexual conduct with a minor, Francis is the one who removed him.

Who is they?

Vigano’s entire claim is that homosexuality is the cause. And that Francis was lenient on a Priest that had engaged in/propositioned sex with seminarians. Not, that he had seen a letter about involving children.

"Vigano has accused Francis of effectively rehabilitating McCarrick, 88, from restrictions imposed during Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy because of allegations he pressured seminarians to sleep with him. He has called for Francis to resign over the McCarrick scandal, which has sparked a crisis of confidence in the U.S. and Vatican hierarchy.cbsnews.com

Francis has responded to the McCarrick allegations by removing him as a cardinal, over an allegation he molested a minor, and by ordering a Vatican investigation into its archives to determine how McCarrick rose through the ranks despite allegations he also molested adults."

I could argue this point a fair bit, but I don’t think it’s important to the scope of this debate, so let’s agree to disagree.

Sloth:

Who is they?

“They” refers to the allegations being made.

Sloth:

Vigano’s entire claim is that homosexuality is the cause. And that Francis was lenient on a Priest that had engaged in/propositioned sex with seminarians. Not, that he had seen a letter about involving children.

“Archbishop Viganò claimed that the Vatican hierarchy was complicit in covering up [accusations that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had sexually abused seminarians] and that Pope Francis knew about the abuses by the now-disgraced American prelate years before they became public. Yet, the letter contended, Francis did not punish the cardinal, but instead empowered him to help choose powerful American bishops.” says the same source from the NYT. Sexual abuse does not equal consent, even if that consent occurs between a homosexual priest and seminarian. Sexual abuse implies force and rape. I was not aware that the sexual abuse described in these allegations was directed towards adults, but how does that make the situation any better?

“Archbishop Viganò claimed that the Vatican hierarchy was complicit in covering up [accusations that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had sexually abused seminarians] and that Pope Francis knew about the abuses by the now-disgraced American prelate years before they became public. Yet, the letter contended, Francis did not punish the cardinal, but instead empowered him to help choose powerful American bishops.” says the same source from the NYT. Sexual abuse does not equal consent, even if that consent occurs between a homosexual priest and seminarian. Sexual abuse implies force and rape. I was not aware that the sexual abuse described in these allegations was directed towards adults, but how does that make the situation any better?

Yes, he (McCarrick) abused his authority and pressured them to sleep with him. But, adults. That’s what I’ve been saying. Gotta go.

Yes, he (McCarrick) abused his authority and pressured them to sleep with him. But, adults. That’s what I’ve been saying. Gotta go.

Okay, I concede. I thought that McCarrick had been molesting children with Pope Francis’s knowledge. I was wrong. But does it really make it any better if McCarrick was sexually abusing seminarians under the Pope’s discretion and with his knowledge?

Yes, he (McCarrick) abused his authority and pressured them to sleep with him. But, adults. That’s what I’ve been saying. Gotta go.

Okay, I concede. I thought that McCarrick had been molesting children with Pope Francis’s knowledge. I was wrong. But does it really make it any better if McCarrick was sexually abusing seminarians under the Pope’s discretion and with his knowledge?

I would say yes, relatively speaking. Abuse of power or not it does involve adults, and not children. Don’t get me wrong, taking advantage of his position to sleep with seminarians should be disqualifying enough. But it’s sort of the same as a Professor sleeping with a student vs a middle school teacher with a student. Both very, very, very wrong. But, also on very different levels of wrong.

Mainly I thought it important to clear up because of your idea that it should be criminally investigated, possibly ending with Pope Francis in prison. But, again, I’m not sure there is anything criminal for authorities to investigate (concerning McCarrick’s claims).

Further, Vigano is the only person who claims to have seen documentation in which Francis lifts some kind of restrictions. on McCarrick… As of now, there is no evidence. Ok, if you believe him you believe him. I don’t know, because he sounds more honest or something…Seems pointless to argue any further as there is no evidence to support or dispute. It’s a lone individual, who seems particularly focused on homosexuality in the priesthood and among seminarians, trying to connect that to child abuse and Francis.

And if I may horrify my progressive friends, I am actually sympathetic to a degree with Vigano’s view about homosexuality in the priesthood. And a culture invading the seminary. Which is what McCarrick’s claim actually boils down too (just to reiterate for others). I am a rightist Catholic on these social issues if that means anything to you… Still, I don’t like that it’s one person claiming to have seen some document with no corroborating evidence. And that person seems to have a serious bias (right/conservative Catholic) that puts him at odds with a Pope who is viewed as more left, or at least soft, on homosexuality. Even if I share that bias to some extent.

I would say yes, relatively speaking. Abuse of power or not it does involve adults, and not children. Don’t get me wrong, taking advantage of his position to sleep with seminarians should be disqualifying enough. But it’s sort of the same as a Professor sleeping with a student vs a middle school teacher with a student. Both very, very, very wrong. But, also on very different levels of wrong.

I agree. However, let’s clear up a point. Is molestation not still molestation?

Sloth:

And that person seems to have a serious bias (right/conservative Catholic) that puts him at odds with a Pope who is viewed as more left, or at least soft, on homosexuality. Even if I share that bias to some extent.

I hear what you’re saying about this bias. However, is this really grounds to dismiss these claims as false?

Based off of how you have conducted yourself in this thread, I’m guessing your circle doesn’t include very many people who are homosexual. I wouldn’t be around someone who thought I was an abomination.

So are you saying homosexuality is normal in the population? Anything to back your claim?

The pope is “present[ly] employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.” - puller from; https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9499 - The Pope, whoever he is during whatever his time is and always be a fallible man. However when teaches by releasing a document to the Church (in Latin) that teaching can be infallible if it conforms to the teaching of the Church. It can also be heretical, the Church has had periods when She had bad popes. Pope Francis is no different, he is a sinful man who happened to be elected into the office, but he deserves my respect for the office, position and teaching authority he has.

liftangryordie500:

I understand the point you’re trying to make. However, aside from not actually answering my question, your point is inaccurate because of one key contradiction: according to the Catechism, the Pope = Christ. Therefore, how can the Pope be Christ all the while refusing to acknowledge the pedophilia in his Church when God and sin cannot be anywhere near each other?

In physics, something has to start a reaction. Is a biological process any different?

H_factor:

As pointed out by everyone else in here you weren’t really after a discussion. You said your theory and then immediately wanted everyone to prove you wrong. Much like with your religion the burden of proof is not on me to prove something is real no one has ever seen.*

I do not keep track of the homosexuals that have told me about their past abuse. Also I do not keep track of the women I have talked to who regret their abortions. Does every single case of homosexuality/abortion remain the same? Of course not, this is life. Yet I still wonder why it matters to you so much?

How many homosexuals have you talked to about their behavior? I’m sure you know more gay people than me. I live in a smaller town that is conservative so that tells you there are fewer gay people here than in Phoenix and especially San Fransisco.

zecarlo:

If you have to ask it says something about how you reason, or rather, don’t reason.